3 ms·

The law does not define what is ethical. Of course you can blame somebody for trying to hoard an unreasonable amount of wealth. As George said, we live in a s

The law does not define what is ethical. Of course you can blame somebody for trying to hoard an unreasonable amount of wealth. As George said, we live in a society.

whalesalad 2y ago
This nation was literally founded on a desire to give the middle finger to the tax man. Ethics is a very subjective thing. I disagree with your take.
- awfulneutral 2y ago
  If you're referring to the desire to avoid unreasonable taxation without representation, it does not seem like the same thing to me. I don't know - maybe he is avoiding taxes so he can give it all to charity. But greed seems pretty commonly accepted to be unethical.
  - whalesalad 2y ago
    LEGALLY protecting something that is your own, I don’t know how you see that as unethical. Take this up with the IRS if you disagree with it. Don’t blame the individual for following the law.
    - awfulneutral 2y ago
      It sounds like you do think the law defines what is ethical then. I disagree with that take.
      - RhysU 2y ago
        The law defines that which is owed the government. No man owes the government more than the government demands. Ethics has no place in the discussion aside from being a consideration in setting what the government demands.
        awfulneutral 2y ago
        You may not "owe" the government, if you can find a loophole where you can technically avoid paying legally. But in my opinion ethics definitely comes into it, why wouldn't it?
        RhysU 2y ago
        The government is the only entity that is responsible for the loopholes and that can close the loopholes. If we want fewer loopholes then we should prioritize that when selecting our government. The law does not define ethics. Ethics does not define the law. It is folly to pretend there is more than a tenuous bidirectional link. For example, any father ethically owes his children more than child support. And any child ethically owes his father more than refraining from stealing from or killing him.
        awfulneutral 2y ago
        The existence of these loopholes creates two options: 1) Follow the spirit of the law, which is that on your death, your assets are taxed as they are passed on, thus you contribute to funding the laws and society we are supposedly working together to create. 2) Do work to avoid having to give up anything, even though you can easily afford it, and you'll be dead anyway. I don't see how #2 is ethically the same as #1. He doesn't have to do the most selfish thing just because he isn't technically being forced otherwise. Caveat that I haven't researched if this guy is giving tons of money away otherwise or something, I'm just trying to explain why I think it's fair for people to criticize this behavior even though it might be legal.
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
cscurmudgeon 2y ago
1. He is not hoarding it like Scrooge McDuck in a vault. 2. If the government squanders tax payer money all over the world, isn't it morally bad to give that money to the govt. when you can legally keep it?
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- awfulneutral 2y ago
  (deleted my previous reply as I wasn't happy with it.) 1. I'm not sure what the implication is here. 2. It sounds like he is attempting to create dynastic wealth by avoiding taxes owed after he dies. So, to me it does not seem like some protest against the US government. But if he was actively trying to do good with his wealth in the amount of billions of dollars, then maybe that could be defensible.
  - hackeraccount 2y ago
    1. The implication is that this is a question of who can put the money to the greatest possible use. If I take the money I have and invest it then I'll get paid something for that. It follows that the person taking the money thinks they can use my money and end up with more even after they've paid me back. Here's the question. Is every act of commerce an act of theft? If so then none of this means anything. If not, if a company borrowing money is making good and services (and jobs) that everyone benefits from then in theory my putting my money to work is making everyone better off. The alternative is that government will use the money more positively. On the upside they just spend it on the downside all they do is spend it - the feedback from "good" and "bad" spending is delayed.

The law does not define what is ethical. Of course you can blame somebody for trying to hoard an unreasonable amount of wealth. As George said, we live in a society.

whalesalad 2y ago

This nation was literally founded on a desire to give the middle finger to the tax man. Ethics is a very subjective thing. I disagree with your take.

awfulneutral 2y ago
If you're referring to the desire to avoid unreasonable taxation without representation, it does not seem like the same thing to me. I don't know - maybe he is avoiding taxes so he can give it all to charity. But greed seems pretty commonly accepted to be unethical.
- whalesalad 2y ago
  LEGALLY protecting something that is your own, I don’t know how you see that as unethical. Take this up with the IRS if you disagree with it. Don’t blame the individual for following the law.
  - awfulneutral 2y ago
    It sounds like you do think the law defines what is ethical then. I disagree with that take.
    - RhysU 2y ago
      The law defines that which is owed the government. No man owes the government more than the government demands. Ethics has no place in the discussion aside from being a consideration in setting what the government demands.
      - awfulneutral 2y ago
        You may not "owe" the government, if you can find a loophole where you can technically avoid paying legally. But in my opinion ethics definitely comes into it, why wouldn't it?
        RhysU 2y ago
        The government is the only entity that is responsible for the loopholes and that can close the loopholes. If we want fewer loopholes then we should prioritize that when selecting our government. The law does not define ethics. Ethics does not define the law. It is folly to pretend there is more than a tenuous bidirectional link. For example, any father ethically owes his children more than child support. And any child ethically owes his father more than refraining from stealing from or killing him.
        awfulneutral 2y ago
        The existence of these loopholes creates two options: 1) Follow the spirit of the law, which is that on your death, your assets are taxed as they are passed on, thus you contribute to funding the laws and society we are supposedly working together to create. 2) Do work to avoid having to give up anything, even though you can easily afford it, and you'll be dead anyway. I don't see how #2 is ethically the same as #1. He doesn't have to do the most selfish thing just because he isn't technically being forced otherwise. Caveat that I haven't researched if this guy is giving tons of money away otherwise or something, I'm just trying to explain why I think it's fair for people to criticize this behavior even though it might be legal.
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]

cscurmudgeon 2y ago

1. He is not hoarding it like Scrooge McDuck in a vault. 2. If the government squanders tax payer money all over the world, isn't it morally bad to give that money to the govt. when you can legally keep it?

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
awfulneutral 2y ago
(deleted my previous reply as I wasn't happy with it.) 1. I'm not sure what the implication is here. 2. It sounds like he is attempting to create dynastic wealth by avoiding taxes owed after he dies. So, to me it does not seem like some protest against the US government. But if he was actively trying to do good with his wealth in the amount of billions of dollars, then maybe that could be defensible.
- hackeraccount 2y ago
  1. The implication is that this is a question of who can put the money to the greatest possible use. If I take the money I have and invest it then I'll get paid something for that. It follows that the person taking the money thinks they can use my money and end up with more even after they've paid me back. Here's the question. Is every act of commerce an act of theft? If so then none of this means anything. If not, if a company borrowing money is making good and services (and jobs) that everyone benefits from then in theory my putting my money to work is making everyone better off. The alternative is that government will use the money more positively. On the upside they just spend it on the downside all they do is spend it - the feedback from "good" and "bad" spending is delayed.